New paper klaxon! @JenniferRaff@ewanbirney@aylwyn_scally@minouye271 and I have been working on this a while: sparking a conversation about the lexicon of genetics, which continues to utilise scientifically redundant, confusing and racist terminology.
We’re definitely not prescribing or policing language, but want to prompt a dialogue with colleagues in similar and adjacent fields about our terminology m, datasets and tools, and move towards a lexicon that both serves the science and frees us from a racist past.
This is to be a conversation, so please please please let us know what you think. This is a preprint, it is also in with a journal, but this is a community effort to move genetics forward. 🧬
In 1877, Rhodes wrote in his will about forming a secret society devoted to the British conquering the entire world, as the ‘Anglo Saxon race’ were the finest people on Earth and deserved to rule over and occupy every other country. His ambition was pretty much equal to Hitler’s.
I know we bandy words like white supremacy and racist around rather easily these days, and false comparisons to Hitler has its own law - but Godwin’s Law does not apply when the comparison is justified, and Rhodes was a literal white supremacist with a comic book global ambition
Nigel Biggar must know this, yet writes the same anti-intellectual and anti-history piece for the Telegraph week on week, presumably high on the attention, like an addicted one trick pony.
New paper out today, finally, on the misplaced confidence about a so-called geographical ‘homeland’ of Homo sapiens, and how to avoid ‘inference pitfalls’ from weak data.
Led by @DrEleanorScerri, @cschlebu, @liisaloog and @mt_genes, it’s a response to Chan et al (2019), a Nature paper which we didn’t think was very good, and was misleading about how we can understand human origins.
Okey doke artichoke. This article from the Telegraph is pure culture wars bullshit. What they are proposing is traditionally called History of Science, and is taught everywhere.
Assessment of historical figures and their views is literally part of history, and yes, Darwin held views which were typical for his time, but deserve to be aired and understood. Here's a feature I wrote on this very subject earlier this year bit.ly/3pQWacz
The foundations of modern science are inextricably entwined with empire building and colonialism, as human taxonomy was used in service of subjugation. Linnaeus was a key figure in that classification. Here's a feature I wrote on this bit.ly/3txIapY
Think of the work and person-hours that have been wasted to squeeze out this shart. They had to find the ‘psychics’ - or, to give them their full title, ‘not psychics’ - match them with also ‘not psychics’, sample them, sequence their 🧬, analyse that, write it up, submit it...
The journal editors had to read it, send it out to peer review, receive comments, email the authors, make corrections. And at no point did anyone go ‘hold on a minute! This is a tiny pebble of ploppypoop, that makes us, the journal, science and academia look ridiculous’. 🧬💩
Ok, so I read some of the articles in the Journal of Controversial Ideas. Some notes: 1) The logo is terrible. 2) The articles are terrible 3) Poorly written, poorly structured, imagined arguments, lazy scholarship. 4) And boring. 5) that is all.
Take this one: Make up a term - 'Cognitive Creationism' - define it to mean something that at best, a tiny, largely ignored fringe think is roughly right, cite non-scholarly work + waffle + quote-mine = CONTROVERSIAL. My arse. bit.ly/3gx0lJz
The only question is which of the race wienies wrote it, but wasn't brave enough to put their name to it.
This is not a great look. I'm sure there is more to the book, but this report springs to eternal trap of simplistic single ideas that 'make us human' where evidence is slight.
I would suggest reading Transcendence by @WanderingGaia, Kindred by @LeMoustier, or the Book of Humans by me, which avoid these traps.